Where We Are

Posted Sunday, January 22, 2012, at 3:00 PM

Three primaries/caucuses, three different winners. So what has this primary season told us so far? Not much, to be honest. I still stand behind my original prediction that Mitt Romney will be the eventual nominee, but it will take longer than I had originally thought it would. Conservative voters still do not have a candidate that they can get behind.

One thing that has been learned is that Ron Paul is not competitive in this primary. Three straight third place finishes is not a good showing and is not something to run on. As "truly" conservative as Paul is supposed to be South Carolina should have been an easy pick-up for him but instead he finished a very distant third behind winner Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

What we did learn in South Carolina is that the voters, in that state at least, are willing to overlook their family values first mantra to vote for someone they hope holds the rest of their conservative values at heart. He does not, as his Congressional record showed. In politics, however, the past does not matter if you do not want it to. Personal finances matter especially if you cheat the government out of money, but being married three times and cheating on two of the wives does not seem to really matter.

What the first three primaries/caucuses has shown is that the "not-Romney" crowd still does not have a candidate that they want to fully get behind. As long as their are two candidates vying for the far-right conservative vote Romney will win the nomination. If one were to drop out that would almost certainly hurt Romney's chances. Since Santorum eventually picked up Iowa and Gingrich won South Carolina neither will be dropping out anytime soon.

The only true surprise was Rick Perry dropping out just days before the South Carolina primary, a state that he had declared weeks earlier he would make any decisions after the primary.

Hello Posters and readers who don't post but have been around for a while.

Is it just Sir Didymus's crazy theory or does Benevolus remind any of the rest of you of anyone?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 8:52 PM

Yep!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 9:16 PM

Wait, I thought I was the poster from LJS's forum? Is this the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-and-what-sticks theory?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 10:10 PM

The similarities are mind boggleing are they not? Perhaps it would have been a touch harder to see if the bot-speaker didn't come back not too long after benevolus showed up. Especially after his "roomate" posted... then POOF! the boards were slightly overun.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 10:22 PM

What is a bot-speaker?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 10:29 PM

transplant and didymus

thanks for staying on topic

-- Posted by president obama on Wed, Jan 25, 2012, at 10:45 PM

The presidential primaries would be infinitely more interesting if Hillary Clinton had run against Barrack.

I don't think Mitt "megabucks-middle-of-the-road" Romney can defeat Barrack "soak-the-rich-get-your-benefits-here" Obama. Ron "makes-too-much-sense" Paul does not promise anything to the moochers or to the military/defense industry so he cannot win.

As always, just one man's opinion on the status of the world.

JG

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 4:49 PM

JG,

First, let me say that the Atlas Shrugged reference is a good one.

Second, I agree with your opinion. Though if I were to characterize the candidates you mention it'd go:

Mitt "seriously-I-can-be-conservatives-if-I-have-to" Romney

Barrack "sweet-talk-the-left-kotow-to-the-right" Obama

Ron "makes-a-lot-of-sense-(in-theory)" Paul

Can you remember the last time you voted in a presidential election with an incumbent president that didn't come down to a lesser of two evils?

In my opinion, Bush/Kerry is the pièce de résistance where that is concerned...though this year isn't going to be far behind.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 8:12 PM

I think the choice is pretty clear this year. If you want to continue the path we are on which is showing the economy slowly improving, more rights for more people, less wars, a smaller but more powerful military you vote for Obama.

If you want to return to the strategies that led us nearly to the point of no return, continuous wars on many fronts, only select people having certain rights, and fear reigning supreme (for just one example take a look at the Republican's response to the State of the Union by Governor Daniels of Indiana who resembled Chicken Little than he did a governor of a state) you vote for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum.

Paul is an absolute joke who continuously attempts to get himself out of controversy by lying his way out of it. Seriously he ran a newspaper, he was the editor of the paper. The finished product had to go by him first and he seriously doesn't recall half that stuff that went into it and claims he never saw it? How Paul has convinced anyone that he is actually a serious candidate for President is beyond me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 29, 2012, at 5:14 PM

By the way a large thank you to those of you who can actually stay on topic and not go off on side-topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 29, 2012, at 5:17 PM

Mr. Hendricks, you claim Obama is a vote for "more rights for more people". Do you not realize he signed the NDAA into law on New Year's Eve. The new law allows for "indefinite detention" of US citizens, without hearing, without trial, without legal counsel? Also, since the uprisings in the Middle East, he signed into law the power to shut down the internet in the US anytime he deems it necessary. He personally ordered the murder of a US citizen in Pakistan via a bomb dropped from a drone there--no trial, no charges, no hearing, just an execution. Justified? We will NEVER know.

Dr. Ron Paul get has the backing of active duty military people, more so than any other presidential candidate. I suspect it is because they are weary of being sent to fruitless, meaningless wars, year after year.